System and methods for assisting businesses in compliance with gas emissions requirements

ABSTRACT

A system and method for calculating a value indicative of the amount of an undesirable constituent of a volatile gas stream that is removed from the atmosphere. Data received at a higher sampling rate is subjected to a plurality of validation processes and data that is determined to be faulty is then quarantined. Quarantined data can be replaced, however, an audit trail is generated to indicate what data has been replaced and the underlying rationale for the replacement data.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. application Ser.No. 11/566,653, filed Dec. 4, 2006, which claims the benefit of U.S.Provisional Patent Application No. 60/786,442, titled “System andMethods for Assisting Businesses in Compliance with Gas EmissionsRequirements,” filed Mar. 27, 2006. The disclosures of all theabove-referenced prior applications, publications, and patents areconsidered part of the disclosure of this application, and areincorporated by reference herein, in their entirety.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to systems for automatically capturingdata relating to the removal of undesired constituents from volatilegases and, in particular, concerns a system which automatically collectsdata relating to the removal of carbon from volatile gases, such asgreenhouse gases, validates the data and then determines the quantity ofgas destroyed and the resultant amount of gaseous carbon reduced.

2. Description of the Related Art

In this era of global warming, the reduction of greenhouse gases and, inparticular, the reduction of carbon containing gas in the environment ishighly desirable. To this end, many countries of the world have enteredinto the Kyoto Protocol which requires countries to reduce the amount ofgreenhouse gas emissions and, in particular, reduce the amount of gasesthat contain carbon. This will require that certain industries andfacilities that produce carbon containing gases take steps to reduce theamount of carbon containing gas emissions that they are releasing intothe atmosphere. In addition to the Kyoto Protocol, various nationalgovernments have also implemented or are contemplating implementingprocedures whereby various industries are provided with incentives toreduce the greenhouse emissions and the emissions of carbon containinggases.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, it is contemplated that industries will begiven credits for the quantifiable amount of carbon that they haveremoved from the atmosphere. It is believed that these carbon creditswill ultimately be traded between industries and will assume monetaryvalue. Similarly, the United States contemplates providing tax creditsto industry for the amount of carbon containing gases that have beenreduced or otherwise removed from the atmosphere. These regimes havemade it desirable to be able to accurately determine the amount ofcarbon gases that have been removed from the atmosphere.

However, in some implementations, it is often very difficult todetermine the amount of carbon that have been removed from theatmosphere. One particular example of such a difficult implementationinvolves landfills. Landfills typically include a considerable amount oforganic material that is decomposing underground. Volatile carboncontaining gases, such as methane, are often produced as a result ofthis decomposition process. If allowed simply to vent into theatmosphere, the amount of carbon contained in these gases can besubstantial.

As a consequence, it is desirable to prevent as much of the carboncontaining gases, such as methane, from landfills from venting into theatmosphere. Typically, landfills will have a plurality of wellheads thatare positioned so as to capture the gases and the well heads are oftenlinked together such that the gases are provided to one or moredestruction devices. The destruction devices can, in the simplestimplementation, be a furnace or flare that is lit which results in thevolatile carbon containing gases burning thereby transforming a fractionof the gaseous carbon component into solid carbon which thereby removesit from the atmosphere.

As the decomposition process within a landfill is variable, it is oftendifficult to determine with a high level of certainty for any particulartime interval the amount of volatile carbon gases that have beenreduced. The constituent components of the volatile carbon gases willvary based upon the materials that are decomposing and the volume of thevolatile carbon containing gases will also vary based upon a widevariety of factors. As a consequence, it is necessary to monitor the gasflow and constituent components of the gas flow as well as theperformance of the device used to reduce the volatile carbon gases on afairly frequent basis to make an assessment of the amount of carbon thathas been removed from the atmosphere.

Consequently, the monitoring system for such variable carbon gasproducing facilities, such as landfills, is necessarily complex andinvolves many highly sophisticated and sensitive sensors. As a result ofthe complexity of the sensing system, it is not uncommon that variouscomponents will render faulty readings from time to time. Given thevariability of the amount of gases being produced and also beingreduced, faulty components for a particular period of time can result ina substantial loss of data and an inability to determine the actualamount of carbon that had been removed out of the atmosphere duringcertain time periods.

Generally, when data necessary for the calculation of the amount ofcarbon that has been removed from the atmosphere is missing,approximations of the data are often manually made by individuals.However, this manual approximation is often done on an ad hoc basiswhich reduces the confidence in the accuracy of the reported amount ofcarbon that has been reduced out of the atmosphere. In systems wherecompensation is going to be provided for this data, this loss ofaccuracy and confidence in the data can have a significant effect on thewillingness of people to give monetary amounts for credits given forclaimed carbon reduction.

Specifically, without some type of a verifiable system that is able todetermine or approximate the faulty data, the willingness of governmentagencies to provide tax credits for carbon removed or reduced is goingto be lessened. Moreover, if credits are going to be exchanged on anopen market, the underlying basis and method of determining the creditshas to be sufficiently accurate and transparent so as to justify a levelof confidence on the part of the participants in the market.

Based upon the foregoing, there is a need for a system that will monitorthe amount of carbon reduced out of greenhouse gases in systems that aresubject to high variability in the amount of gas flow and the gascomponent, such as in landfill-type systems. To this end, there is aneed for a system which is able to correct for missing or faulty data ina manner that is transparent and allows for subsequent review to therebyincrease the confidence that auditors and other interested parties willhave in the resulting figures relating to the amount of carbon that hasbeen reduced or removed from the atmosphere.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The aforementioned needs are satisfied, in one aspect, by a system formonitoring a highly-variable carbon gas source. In one particularimplementation, the system includes a first monitoring system whichmeasures the characteristics of the carbon gas and the characteristicsof the reduction device reducing the volatile gas into a less volatileform on a frequent basis. The system further includes memory devicesthat captures historical records of the gas characteristics andreduction characteristics. The system further compares data as it isreceived to the historical data in order to determine whether thereceived data may be erroneous. When the system determines that thereceived data may be erroneous, the data is then quarantined and anindividual then has the opportunity to determine whether to replace thequarantined data with replacement data. The system is advantageouslyconfigured such that when such replacement occurs, the rationale forsuch replacement is recorded such that upon subsequent audit or reviewof the data, the rationale for the replaced data can be reviewed andaudited.

In one particular implementation, the data is subjected to a pluralityof different verification steps. In one particular implementation, theplurality includes verifying that the data falls within preset minimumand maximums and that further the plurality includes determining whetherthe data falls within a threshold deviation from an average value ofpreviously obtained data. In yet another implementation, the systemfurther includes monitoring on a less frequent basis gas flows andconstituent components of the gas at locations other than thedestruction device and then calculating a correlated value thatcorrelates to the value that is received on the more frequent basis. Inthis particular implementation, the verification can include comparingthe more continuously received data to the calculated correlated datafrom the distributed gas flow and determining whether the morecontinuously captured data is within a preset amount of the correlated,calculated data.

From the foregoing it will be appreciated that the system and methoddisclosed herein provide for a more verifiable calculation and also acalculation whereby faulty data can be replaced but the replaced data ismore easily subject to review and auditing. As such, the data can beused for calculations of the amount of the undesirable gas componentthat has been removed from the atmosphere with greater confidence tothereby allow for more confidence in basing financial transactions onthe data. These and other objects and advantages of the presentinvention will become more apparent from the following description takenin conjunction with the accompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of a system for capturing data off ofa variable volatile gas source such as a landfill;

FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of a system for calculating andverifying the amount of undesirable constituents in the gas that hasbeen removed by the system of FIG. 1;

FIG. 3 is an exemplary flow chart illustrating a process flow by whichthe amount of undesirable constituents in the gas flow that have beenreduced out of the atmosphere is determined, verified, and used tocalculate a quantified value corresponding thereto;

FIG. 4 is an exemplary flow chart illustrating the manner in which thedata received from the volatile gas source is verified;

FIG. 5 is an exemplary flow chart illustrating one possible verificationprocess whereby centrally collected data is compared to correlated,distributed collected data in the volatile gas source; and

FIG. 6 is an exemplary flow chart illustrating the manner in whichfaulty data is replaced with predictive data and the process wherebysuch changes are recorded for subsequent review and auditing purposes.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

Reference will now be made to the drawings wherein like numerals referto like parts throughout. Referring initially to FIG. 1, a system forcapturing and reducing undesirable components of volatile gases off of avariable volatile gas source is illustrated. In this particularimplementation, the variable volatile gas source is a landfill which hasa distributed quantity of decomposing organic material 52 that is buriedunderneath the ground. The exact composition of the decomposing material52 varies widely as does the rate of decomposition as well as theconstituent components of the decomposition. Volatile gases, such asmethane, are produced as a result of the decomposing material 52 and theland fill 50 is thus equipped with a plurality of well heads 54 that areused to capture the volatile gases from the decomposing material 52. Theamount, number and size of well heads will, of course, vary greatlydepending upon the actual implementation. In this particular embodiment,a plurality of well head analyzers 56 are also installed on at leastsome of the well heads and the well head analyzers 56 measure suchthings the flow rate and the constituent components of the volatilegases read at a particular well head. In one particular implementation,the well head analyzers record an aggregate amount of gas that hasflowed over a preselected period, e.g., over a day, multiple days or aweek, as well as the gas pressure and gas composition also detectedduring the same time period. One exemplary well head analyzer 56 thatcan be used is an Accu-flo well head analyzer, GEM-type analyzer,manufactured by LANDTEC of Colton, Calif. As is also indicated in FIG.1, the well heads 54 are linked together via gas transportation systems60 such that the volatile gases containing the undesirable constituentscan be aggregated together and provided to a destruction device 64. Thedestruction device is a device that is adapted to remove the undesirableconstituents out of the gas flow. The destruction device 64 can comprisesuch things such as scrubbers, filters, furnaces and flares. In oneparticular common implementation, the destruction device 64 comprises aflame burner or flare to which the volatile gas is provided such thatthe volatile gas can then be burned which results in at least a portionof volatile carbon gas being transformed into solid carbon and therebyremoved from the atmosphere.

In order to determine the quantity of undesirable constituents, e.g.,carbon components in the volatile gas stream that is removed, theaggregate volatile gas is fed into a destruction device gas analyzer 62which monitors characteristics of the volatile gas flow including suchthings as the volume, rate and pressure of gas flow, as well as othercharacteristics, such as the temperature of the gas flow and theconstituent components or the composition of the gas flow including, forexample, the amount of volatile carbon containing gases. A typicaldestruction device gas analyzer 62 that can be used in this particularimplementation includes an FAU-type gas analyzer, available from LANDTECof Colton, Calif.

As will be discussed in greater detail below, the destruction device gasanalyzer 62 preferably samples the gas flow at a relatively highfrequency, e.g., once every two minutes, and generates a signalindicative of the volatile gas flow at this relatively high samplingrate. As will be discussed in greater detail below, this data can thenbe used to determine the amount of undesirable constituents in thevolatile gas flow that has been reduced as a result of the operation ofthe destruction device.

As is also indicated in FIG. 1, the destruction device further includesa monitoring system 66 that monitors the characteristics of thedestruction device such that the characteristics of the destructiondevice can be used to calculate the amount of the undesirableconstituents that have been reduced out of the gas flow. In oneparticular implementation, the destruction device 64 comprises a flareand the monitoring system comprises a plurality of sensors that measuressuch things such as the heat energy produced when the volatile gas isburned as well as the constituents components of the gas flow residingfollowing the burning of the volatile gas being supplied from thevolatile gas source 50. In one particular implementation, the monitoringsystem 66 includes an FSU-type monitoring system, available from LANDTECof Colton, Calif.

Hence, the system disclosed in FIG. 1 comprises a system whichaccumulates a volatile gas flow that has some undesirable constituents,such as carbon and then provides this to a destruction device which isdesigned to remove at least a portion of the undesirable characteristicsand the system further includes a plurality of different sets of sensorsthat measure data indicative of the characteristics of the gas flow atdifferent locations and possibly different sampling rates. It will beappreciated that the exact configuration of the system for accumulating,assessing, and reducing volatile gas flows with undesirable constituentscan, of course, vary greatly depending upon the implementation withoutdeparting from the spirit of the present teachings.

FIG. 2 is an exemplary block diagram illustrating the system by which acalculated quantity of undesirable constituents in the volatile gas flowis determined. This particular system comprises a computer-based system100 and can include, for example, a personal computer that is IBM,Macintosh, or LINUX/UNIX compatible. In one embodiment, the exemplarycomputing system 100 includes a central processing unit 105 that mayinclude a conventional microprocessor. The computing system 100 furtherincludes a memory 130 such as a Random Access Memory (RAM) for temporarystorage of information, a Read Only Memory (ROM) for permanent storageof information, a mass storage device 120 such as a hard drive, disketteor optical media storage device.

The mass storage device 120 includes such data as previously captureddata that is stored in a well known manner. The previously captured datacan then be used to validate newly received by though comparison ofhistorical averages, most recent averages and the like.

Typically, the modules of the computing system 100 are connected to thecomputer using a standard based bus system. In different embodiments,the standard based bus system can include peripheral componentinterconnect (PCI), micro channel, SCSI, Industrial StandardArchitecture (ISA), and Extended ISA (EISA) architectures, for example.The computing system 100 is generally controlled and coordinated byoperating system software such as Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP, LINUX,SUN OS, Solaris, or other compatible operating systems. In Macintoshsystems the operating system may be any available operating system suchas MAC OSX. In other embodiments, the computing system 100 may becontrolled by a proprietary operating system. Conventional operatingsystems control and schedule computer processes for execution, performmemory management, provide file systems, networking and IO services, andprovide a user interface, such as a Graphical User Interface (GUI) amongother things.

The exemplary computing system 100 includes one or more commonlyavailable Input/Output (I/O) devices and interfaces 110, such as akeyboard, mouse, touchpad and printer. In one embodiment, the I/O deviceand interfaces include one or more display devices, such as a monitor,that allows the visual presentation of data to a user. Moreparticularly, a display device provides for the presentations of GUI's,application software data, and multimedia presentations, for example.The computing system 100 may also include one or more multimedia devices140, such as speakers, video cards, graphic accelerators andmicrophones, for example.

In the embodiment of FIG. 2, the I/O devices and interfaces 110 providea communications interface to various external devices. In theembodiment of FIG. 2, the computing system 100 is coupled to a network160 such as a LAN, WAN, or the Internet, for example via a wired,wireless or combination of wired and wireless communications links 115.The network communicates with various computing devices and/or otherelectronic devices via wired and wireless communications links. In theexemplary embodiment of FIG. 1, the computing device 100 communicateswith the destruction device gas analyzer 62 and the monitoring system 66for the destruction device via the network. Similarly, readers that readthe well head analyzer 56 can also provide the data to the computingsystem 100 via the network. The system further includes a server 190that is attached to the computing system 100 also via the network.

Hence, the computing system 100 is capable of receiving data indicativeof the volatile gas flow from not only the destruction device gasanalyzer 62 and the associated destruction device monitoring system 66,but can also receive data taken from each of the well head analyzers 56using a well head data analyzer monitor 170 such as a GEM-type monitoravailable from LANDTEC. While this data is indicated in FIG. 2 as beingprovided via the Internet or network, it will also be appreciated thatthis data can be provided to the computing system 100 in a variety ofdifferent formats including such things as by manual input of the dataat an I/O device, physical transportation of a reader from the well headanalyzers to the computing systems, paging and text messaging withoutdeparting from the spirit of the present teachings.

As is also indicated in FIG. 2, the computing system 100 is logicallyorganized to include a validation module 145 that receives the data fromthe destruction device gas analyzer 62, associated destruction devicemonitor 66, as well as the data from the well head analyzer reader 170and then performs various validation processes on the received data inorder to validate that the data being received by the computing system100 is a valid representation of the actual physical conditionsoccurring at the destruction device 64. Moreover, the computing system100 is also logically organized to include a reporting module 155 thatprovides reports indicative of the performance of the destruction device64 and the gas flow which can then be used to determine the quantity ofundesirable constituents, such as carbon-based constituents, that havebeen removed from the volatile gas flow as a result of the operation ofthe destruction device 64. The manner in which the validation module 145and the reporting module 155 operate will be described in greater detailbelow in conjunction with the description associated with the flowcharts of FIGS. 3-6.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart that illustrates the operation of the computersystem 100 as it verifies the data that is received from the destructiondevice gas analyzer 62 and the monitoring system 66 of the destructiondevice. It will be appreciated that the flow chart of FIG. 3 along withthe flow charts of FIGS. 4-6 are illustrative of the functionaloperation of the computer system 100, however, the sequence of steps andthe implementation of the steps themselves can, of course, varydepending upon the particular implementation without departing from thespirit of the present invention and that the flow charts are thus simplyexemplary and not limiting to the teachings contained herein. Referringto FIG. 3, the computer system 100, from a start state 200, receives theraw gas analyzer data in state 202. In general, the raw gas analyzerdata is provided either through hardware connections, a networkconnection or wireless connection from the gas analyzer 62 anddestruction device monitoring system 66 in any of a number of well-knownformats. Preferably, this data is received on a near continuous basisduring operation of the destruction device 64 at a relatively highsampling rate such that a near continuous record of the gas that isbeing produced by the landfill and the resultant destruction issubstantially continuously monitored. In one particular implementation,the gas analyzer 62 and the monitoring device 66 provide data indicativeof the amount, pressure and rate of gas flow, the constituent componentsof the gas flow, heat and burn characteristics of the gas in thedestruction device 64 and residual gases following the burning of thevolatile gas. In one implementation, this information is sampled everytwo minutes. It will, however, be appreciated that faster or slowersampling rates may be implemented depending upon the degree ofvariability of the volatile gas being produced by the source of thedesired level of precision of the resulting measurements.

Once the raw data has been received, the raw data is then scaled andcalibrated in State 204. As will be appreciated from the followingdiscussion, the raw data is going to be converted into quantities thatcan be used for comparative analysis. As such, scale factors provided bythe manufacturer of the gas analyzer 62 and monitoring system 66 willhave to be employed to scale the data. Further offset compensationvalues will generally be applied to the raw data in order to end up witha data set that is comparable to previously or subsequently obtaineddata. The scaling and compensation of the raw data will generally beaccomplished using any of a number of well-known scaling andcompensating techniques.

Once the data has been scaled and calibrated, the scaled and calibrateddata is then evaluated, in state 206, for potential faulty data. As willbe described in greater detail below, a plurality of differentvalidations processes are performed on the calibrated data in order todetermine whether the data that is being received is faulty. Faulty datacan stem from a variety of different circumstances, including faulty orclogged sensors, changed environmental conditions, communicationsfailures and the like. Hence, recognizing data that is falling outsideof historical norms, expected thresholds or doesn't coincide with othercorresponding data, is suggestive of faulty data which can result inerroneous calculations for the amount of carbon that has been removedfrom the atmosphere. The various processes by which the faulty data willbe determined in state 206 will be described in greater detail below inconjunction with the flow chart of FIG. 4.

If the system determines, in decision state 210, that there is suspectedfaulty data, the faulty data is preferably quarantined, in state, 214,by the computer system 100 to thereby allow a human operator to reviewthe potentially faulty data to determine whether it is in fact faultydata and also to take steps to replace the faulty data with replacementdata that is likely to more accurately represent the actual conditionsin the gas analyzer 62 and monitoring system 66.

Hence, a human operator will periodically, e.g., hourly, daily, etc.,review the quarantined data and make a determination as to whether thequarantined data is faulty and, if it is faulty, will then replace thefaulty data with corrected data in state 216. The corrected data caneither be data that is empirically determined, e.g., the average ofhistorical data for similar type conditions, or can be data that iscalculated based upon other parameters received by the computer system100, such as the data received from the well head analyzers 56. Further,the corrected data may also comprise data that is selected by the humanoperator based upon the human operator's experience. The manner in whichthe corrected data will be determined to replace the faulty data will bedescribed in greater detail below in conjunction with the flow charts ofFIGS. 5 and 6.

Advantageously, each time that the quarantined data is deemed to befaulty and it is replaced, the computer system 100 builds an auditrecord in state 220. Preferably, the audit record includes what theoriginal data was, as well as the replaced corrected data and a commentprovided by the human operator that is preferably indicative of why thedata was deemed to be faulty and also the rationale as to why particularvalues for corrected data was selected. In this way, a verifiable recordcan be kept of the corrected data and underlying rationales which allowsfor subsequent audits and further allows the auditors to determinewhether the rationale for selecting a particular corrected value for thedata was reasonable. Presumably, an auditor could identify the selecteddata, disagree with the rationale for selecting a particular correcteddata, substitute new corrected data and then recalculate the ultimatefinal values. Hence, building the record of the data that has beendeemed to be faulty and also a record of what the faulty data has beenreplaced by and the underlying rationale allows for greater transparencyand instills greater confidence in the final calculated values.

The non-faulty data and the corrected data are preferably stored instate 212 in the mass storage device 120 (FIG. 2). In this way, acomplete record of the data can be preserved. Following the storing ofthe data in state 212, the system 100 then calculates, in state 222, thefinal destruction quantities from the secured data. The calculation ofthe final destruction quantities can be done according to a wide varietyof algorithms, but preferably follow a standard set of algorithms thatis generally accepted by others in the industry to provide the bestindication as to the amount of undesirable constituents in the volatilegas flow that has been removed. The calculation determining the amountof carbon that has been removed from the gas flow out of the landfillcan follow any of a known set of formulas. The final destructionquantities that are calculated are generally calculated on a periodicbasis, e.g., daily, weekly, and the like.

FIG. 4 is an exemplary flow chart that illustrates the verificationprocess that is performed on the calibrated data in function 206. Itwill be appreciated from the following description that a wide varietyof different verification steps can be performed and that the dataverification steps that are performed in this particular implementationare simply exemplary of the various types of verification steps that canbe implemented.

From a start state 240, the system 100 initially determines whether thedata is repetitive. Data on any of the channels that have substantiallythe same value for a large number of samplings is indicative of perhapsa faulty sensor that is no longer able to track the variations in theparticular measurement. As a consequence, the system 100 keeps a counterof consecutive identical readings on any particular channel. If thesystem 100 determines, in decision state 244, that the data has repeatedfor a selected number of consecutive readings, the data is thenquarantined in state 214 to be processed in the manner described above.If the data has not repeated for a preselected number of consecutivereadings, the system 100 then verifies, in state 246, whether the datafalls within preselected absolute minimum and maximum values for theparticular data. In general, for a particular parameter, such as gasflow, there is predetermined minimum and maximum value that can beexpected out of the gas source based upon empirical historicalobservations of the gas source. Hence, the system 100 in state 246compares each of the incoming data values to a minimum and maximum forthat particular value. If the system 100 determines in decision state250 that the data is not within the preselected minimum and maximumvalues, then the data is quarantined in state 214 and is evaluated bythe human operator in the manner described above.

If the data is within the minimum and maximum values, the computersystem 100 then verifies, in state 262, whether the data is within apreset percentage deviation from the historical average for thatparticular parameter. The percentage deviation will, of course, varydepending upon the particular parameter in question and also dependingupon the particular landfill in question. Even for highly variable gassources, substantial deviations from the historical average may providean indication that the data is suspect thereby necessitating a furtherreview of the data to determine whether it is faulty or not. If thesystem 100 determines, in decision state 264, that the data on aparticular channel corresponding to a particular parameter deviates morethan a preselected percentage amount, the data can then be quarantinedin state 214 to be reviewed by a human operator in the manner describedabove.

Subsequently, the system 100 then verifies that the data is within apreselected average that has been recorded in a recent previous timeperiod. For each time period, e.g., each week, an average for thatparticular week is preferably calculated by the system 100 and stored.Subsequently, during the next time period, the data during the next timeperiod can be compared to the data during the previous time period tosee if there is a substantial deviation. It will be appreciated that inmany systems, there will be deviations over the course of the year basedupon environmental factors and the like. By comparing the currentlyreceived data to what has been received in the previous time period,substantial deviation can be indicative of faulty data. Hence, if thesystem 100 determines in decision state 270 that the current valuesbeing received from the gas analyzer and monitoring system substantiallydeviate from the averages that have been received during a selectedpreceding time period, then the data is quarantined in state 214 forfurther review by the human operator in the manner described above.

If the data is within an acceptable deviation of the previous averages,the system 100 then proceeds to compare the destruction device gasanalyzer data to corresponding values determined from the well headanalyzer 56 in function 252. More specifically as will be described ingreater detail below in reference to FIG. 5, the well head dataanalyzers 56 provide summary data corresponding to the total gas flow,the total value of constituent components and the like over asubstantially longer time period, e.g., one day, one week, etc. Thisparticular information can then be used to calculate generally expectedaverages that correspond to the sampling rate at which the system 100 isreceiving the data from the destruction device gas analyzer 62 and themonitoring system 66.

If the system 100 determines that there is a substantial deviationbetween the more frequently sampled data from the destruction device gasanalyzer 62 and the values calculated from the well head analyzer data,then the data will be quarantined in state 214 for further review by thehuman operator in the manner described above. If the currently sampleddata is within a tolerance value of the expected value determined fromthe well head analyzers, the system 100 proceeds to an end state 260 andproceeds with the flow described above in connection with FIG. 3.

Referring now to FIG. 5, the process by which the computer system 100compares the destruction device gas analyzer data to well head gathereddata (state 252—FIG. 4) is illustrated in greater detail. As discussedabove, the gas analyzer 62 is receiving the aggregate gas flow off ofall of the well heads 54. On each well head 52 there is a well headanalyzer 56 that is also measuring gas flow and, in someimplementations, constituent components of the gas flow. In general, thewell head analyzers 56 in this particular implementation are obtainingaggregate records of the amount of gas flow and the amount ofconstituent components in the gas flow over a preset period of time. Asthis data is being captured independent of the data that is beingcaptured on a more frequent basis in the destruction device gas analyzer62, this data provides a basis for checking the validity of the datacaptured by the destruction device gas analyzer 62.

Referring specifically to FIG. 5, from a start state 280, the well headdata 282 has to be periodically collected. In one particularimplementation, an individual goes out to each well head analyzer 56 andobtains a reading of the collected data with the well head analyzerreader 170 (FIG. 2) which is then provided to the computer system 100 inany of a variety of means including wireless transmission, wiretransmission or direct transfer of data via data storage media such asdisks and the like.

Once the well head data is collected, the data has to be calibrated instate 284 in a manner that is known in the art. Once the data has beencalibrated, the data must be correlated to the destruction device datain state 286. In this particular implementation, the well head analyzerdata is being sampled at a substantially slower rate than thedestruction device gas analyzer data which makes comparisons between thetwo difficult. Hence, the well head analyzer data must thus becorrelated such that values correspond to the values that would beexpected to be seen by the destruction device gas analyzer 62 which issampling the data at a much higher sampling rate. In one implementation,the aggregate data is processed into an average value for thecorresponding sampling rate of this destruction device gas analyzerdata. Once this correlation is done, a comparison between the correlatedwell head data and the destruction device data can be made in state 290and the computer system 200 can then determine, in decision state 254,whether the data was in a given tolerance in the manner described abovein connection with FIG. 4. Hence, the more real time collected data fromthe destruction device gas analyzer 62 can be independently verifiedagainst aggregate data that is being collected the well head analyzers56 which comprise an independent data capture system.

Thus, the system 100 employs a plurality of different data validationtechniques in order to ensure that the data that is being sampled by thedestruction device gas analyzer 62 and destruction device monitoringsystem 66 is valid data that can then be used for the calculation of theamount of carbon that is destroyed. Such multiple levels of validationprovide destruction quantity numbers that are more reliable, asdiscussed above. Moreover, if any one of the plurality of datavalidation techniques determines that particular data is faulty, thedata can then be quarantined and replaced in the manner described abovein connection with FIG. 3. More specifically, FIG. 6 illustrates oneexemplary process 216 whereby the faulty data can be replaced by morereliable inferred data.

Specifically referring to FIG. 6, from a start state 300, the computersystem initially displays the faulty data on a graphical user interfacefor the human operator to review. Preferably, an indication as to whythe data is faulty, e.g., which validation test the data failed, is alsodisplayed to the human operator.

The computer system 100 also calculates a historical trend value instate 304 that corresponds to the quarantined data that is beingdisplayed to the human operator in state 306. The historical trend valuecan be any of a number of different types of values including historicalaverages, averages that are weighted based on environmental conditionsor most recent trend-type averages. Once the historical trend value hasbeen calculated, it is displayed to the human operator in state 306 as apossible replacement.

The computer system 100 then determines in decision state 310 whetherthe historical trend value has been accepted and, if it has beenaccepted, and if it has been accepted it adjusts the quarantined data tothe historical trend value in state 312 and increments the audit recordin state 220 in the manner described above. If the human operator doesnot accept the historical trend value, the system then proceeds to state314 wherein the faulty data can be replaced with user selected values,however, the user selected values are not recorded in the audit recorduntil a user comment is recorded is state 316. Thus a verifiable recordcan be developed by the reporting module 155 which can be subsequentlyaccessed for auditing and subsequent verification purposes.

Hence, the foregoing system describes a system whereby more accuratedata can be captured and faulty data can be replaced with reasonableinferred data such that more reliable end calculations can be performed.This allows for more accurate calculations of such things as totalcarbon destroyed or total carbon removed from the atmosphere by alandfill destruction device.

Although the above disclosed embodiments of the present invention haveshown, described and pointed out the fundamental novel features of theinvention as applied to the above-disclosed embodiments, it should beunderstood that various omissions, substitutions and changes in the formof the detail of the devices, systems and/or methods illustrated may bemade by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope of thepresent teachings. Consequently, the scope of the invention should notbe limited to the foregoing description but should be defined by theappended claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computing system comprising: one or morehardware processors in communication with a non-transitorycomputer-readable storage medium having code stored thereon that, inresponse to execution by the one or more hardware processors, causes thecomputing system to: receive sampled data indicative of one or morecharacteristics of a gas before and after removal of methane from thegas; store the sampled data that is usable to determine quantities ofmethane removed from the gas; automatically analyze the sampled data orthe determined quantities of methane to detect possible errors in thedata; and in response to detecting respective possible errors in thedata, provide possible replacement data.
 2. The computing system ofclaim 1, wherein the code is further configured to cause the computingsystem to: receive input from a user accepting or denying respectiveprovided possible replacement data.
 3. The computing system of claim 1,wherein the code is further configured to cause the computing system to:receive an indication of one or more rationales for accepting or denyingrespective replacement data.
 4. The computing system of claim 1, whereinthe code is further configured to cause the computing system toquarantine the respective data with possible errors.
 5. The computingsystem of claim 1, wherein the analyzing comprises comparing the data topre-selected minimum and maximum values in order to detect possibleerrors in the data.
 6. The computing system of claim 1, wherein theanalyzing comprises comparing the data to a historical average.
 7. Thecomputing system of claim 6, wherein the code is further configured tocause the computing system to quarantine data that is outside of apre-selected percentage deviation from the historical average.
 8. Thecomputing system of claim 1, wherein the sampled data includes dataregarding a plurality of constituents of the gas.
 9. The computingsystem of claim 8, wherein the analyzing comprises comparing respectivedata regarding particular constituents to expected values of theparticular constituents.
 10. A non-transitory computer-readable storagemedium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to executionby a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operationscomprising: receiving sampled data indicative of one or morecharacteristics of a gas before and after removal of methane from thegas; storing the sampled data that is usable to determine quantities ofmethane removed from the gas; automatically analyzing the sampled dataor the determined quantities of methane to detect possible errors in thedata; and in response to detecting respective possible errors in thedata, providing possible replacement data.
 11. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the operationsfurther comprise: receiving input from a user accepting or denyingrespective provided possible replacement data.
 12. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the operationsfurther comprise: receiving an indication of one or more rationales foraccepting or denying respective replacement data.
 13. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the operationsfurther comprise: quarantining the respective data with possible errors.14. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10,wherein the analyzing comprises comparing the data to pre-selectedminimum and maximum values in order to detect possible errors in thedata.